Raymond Redlich v. City of St. Louis, No. 21-2894 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Appellants distribute food to homeless people in the City of St. Louis and wish to continue doing so as part of their charitable and religious practice a St. Louis police officer observed Appellants distributing bologna sandwiches and issued each a citation for violating a city ordinance requiring a permit for the distribution of “potentially dangerous food.”Appellants filed this suit, claiming that the City’s enforcement of the ordinance violated their federal and state constitutional rights and Missouri statutes. The district court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the provisions ensure that health inspectors have an opportunity to determine whether the temporary food establishment is complying with the Ordinance. When operating a temporary food establishment, Appellants would also have to ensure: that they take steps to prevent contamination of any ice served to consumers; that tableware provided to consumers is only in single-service and single-use articles; that any equipment is located and installed in a way that avoids food contamination and to facilitate cleaning; that food-contact surfaces are protected from consumer contamination; and that they have water available for cleaning utensils and equipment and to make convenient handwashing facilities available for any employees. Without these provisions regarding the distribution of potentially hazardous food to the public, the City’s goal of preventing foodborne illness would be achieved less effectively. Moreover, the court noted that nothing about the City’s enforcement of the Ordinance against Appellants prevents them from conveying their religious message in other ways.
Court Description: [Menendez, Author, with Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiffs challenge the City of St. Louis's Food Code ordinance requiring a permit to distribute "potentially dangerous foods;" here, plaintiffs were cited for handing out bologna sandwiches to the homeless. Held, with respect to plaintiff's First Amendment Free Exercise Clause claim, even assuming plaintiffs conduct in handing out the sandwiches was sufficiently communicative of their religious beliefs to fall within the First Amendment's purview, the City's ordinance is constitutional under United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968); the City has a substantial interest in preventing foodborne illness, and the ordinance furthers that interest and is narrowly tailored to it; moreover, nothing about the City's enforcement of the ordinance prevents plaintiffs from conveying their religious message in other ways; plaintiffs' hybrid-rights claims also fails because they have not stated a viable Free Exercise Clause claim and their expressive-conduct claim lacks merit.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.